Search for answers or browse our knowledge base.
Auditor General : Biodiversity & Cumulative Effects 2013-2015
In 2013, the Auditor General did a report on Biodiversity and in 2015, a report on Cumulative Effects. These reports were prepared many years after the development of the guides on biodiversity and were prepared by government. They are, in part, an assessment of how effective the guidelines are in implementing policy to manage nature. Both reports indicate there are serious problems that remain unaddressed.
2013 Report on Biodiversity
In 2012-2013 the Auditor General examined the functioning of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) (now two ministries, Forests and Water, Land & Resource Stewardship (Fisheries)) and the Ministry of the Environment with respect to the management of biodiversity on Crown land and focused on the habitat protection actions of these two ministries.
The following extracts are from An Audit of Biodiversity in BC : Assessing the Effectiveness of Key Tools:
Biodiversity includes the variety of ecosystems, genes and species on earth, as well as the natural processes that maintain them. Biodiversity is crucial for the functioning of ecosystems, and provides the natural products and services that support life – from oxygen, food, fresh water and fertile soils to medicines and storm and flood protection.
Despite their importance, ecosystems, species and genetic diversity are being reduced at a rapid rate due to the impacts of increased resource consumption and growing human population. The global decline of biodiversity is recognized as one of the most serious environmental issues today.
Current literature indicates that the job of conserving biodiversity is far greater than the resources available. We expected the B.C. government to be prioritizing its actions to achieve the best possible biodiversity conservation outcomes for the amount of funding and other resources invested.
Human activity is the main cause of biodiversity loss. With so much Crown land in B.C., government has a critical role in managing the impact of this human activity to ensure the conservation of biodiversity.
Findings
We found that there are significant gaps in government’s information about biodiversity. For example:
- Parts of B.C. have never been surveyed for species distribution, and in other areas that have been surveyed, the information is now decades out of date.
- Thousands of species have been assessed for their conservation status — that is, whether they are red-listed (endangered or threatened) or blue-listed (not immediately threatened, but of concern); however this is only a small portion of the estimated total number of species.
- Information about non-vascular plant species (e.g. mosses – see sidebar) and invertebrates (e.g. insects) is lacking.
- Information on the state of some ecosystems is limited.
Government has not developed a strategy for filling these gaps and its current approach to collecting inventory information is dependent on sporadic funding. In addition, the quality checks necessary to ensure that the information being captured is reliable are sometimes lacking. Such issues restrict government’s ability to have the knowledge it needs to make informed decisions about conserving biodiversity.
Habitat designation tools have not been fully implemented.
We found that government has not completed establishing WHAs for 36 of the 85 species it identifies as at risk from forest and range activities.
B.C.’S legislative framework does not fully support its objective of conserving biodiversity.
We concluded that:
- Significant gaps exist in government’s understanding of biodiversity in B.C.
- Government does not know whether its actions are resulting in the conservation of biodiversity.
- Government is not adequately measuring and reporting on its progress in the conservation of biodiversity
We recommend that Government:
- make a long-term commitment to collect sufficient and reliable information about the status of biodiversity in B.C. and apply this information to make informed decisions about the conservation of biodiversity;
- review its legislative framework to ensure that any significant gaps, inconsistencies or barriers to achieving conservation of biodiversity are identified and addressed;
- assign responsibilities and timelines for its conservation actions and demonstrate how the prioritization of these actions is conserving biodiversity;
- establish goals, objectives, targets and timelines to fully implement its habitat designation tools and determine whether other tools are necessary to achieve its objective of conserving biodiversity;
- complete sufficient monitoring to assess the effectiveness of its actions in the conservation of biodiversity; and 6…
Recommendation 2
The natural resource sector ministries are responsible for 130 provincial statutes that provide for the sustainable management and protection of the Province’s natural resources and reconciliation with Aboriginal peoples. Thus, we rely on a suite of regulations and policies to protect and conserve the biodiversity of British Columbia. We are not aware of any jurisdiction in Canada that does not use multiple regulations and policies to conserve biodiversity. As part of the shift to a more coordinated natural resource sector, we recognize there are opportunities to refi ne our legal and policy frameworks.
Starting in 2013, the Province will:
- initiate a review of the natural resource sector legal framework to identify and address significant gaps, duplications, or inconsistencies (by 2017);
- develop and implement policy, procedures, and guidelines for mitigating impacts to priority biodiversity values (by end of 2013); and
- assess and recommend new methods, including incentives, to promote voluntary protection of species at risk on private land (by 2015).
Recommendation 4
British Columbia’s approach to habitat protection is collaborative. We evaluate the socio-economic impacts of habitat decisions, and we engage with parties that may be affected by them. We believe that this type of collaboration results in more effective conservation outcomes and reflects the will of British Columbians.
Response of Government
Currently, 37% of British Columbia’s land-base has one or more biodiversity conservation designations associated with it. Examples of these designations include Ecological Reserves, Parks, Conservation Lands, Wildlife Habitat Areas, Ungulate Winter Ranges, and Special Conservation Areas. The level of conservation varies with each of these designations, but we are looking at the performance of these areas to better inform future decisions and incorporate Climate Change mitigation and adaptation.
The Province recognized that effectively managing to conserve biodiversity in the 21st century required a fundamental shift to how we manage natural resources in B.C.
Starting in 2013, and in conjunction with the review of the natural resource sector legal framework, the Province will:
- initiate a review of the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Forest and Range Practices Act; Oil & Gas Activities Act), and assess options to improve implementation efficiency and better align with both landscape-level biodiversity initiatives and the coordinated natural resource sector approach (by end of 2013); and
- develop a plan to fully implement existing habitat designation tools in conjunction with an assessment of the need for additional tools (by end of 2014).
2015 Report on Cumulative Effects
In 2015 the Auditor General examined the functioning of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) (now two ministries, Forests and Water, Land & Resource Stewardship (Fisheries)) with respect to the management of the impact of human activities on nature in the province (cumulative effects): Managing the Cumulative Effects of Natural Resource Development in BC
The following extracts information from that report:
The term cumulative effects refers to changes to the environment caused by the combined impact of past, present and potential future human activity.
If not managed, these changes to the environment can compound and eventually harm the environment. Managing the cumulative effects of human activities is important because the ability to derive long-term benefits from the land requires an underlying natural resource system that is healthy and sustainable.
Individually, human activities can have minimal effect on the environment. Over time, however, the combined impact of those activities can lead to unintended results. Changes to the environment as a result of the combined effect of past, present and potential future human activities are called cumulative effects.
Why effective management of cumulative effects is important?
Ecological systems (all living things in an area, interacting with each other and with their physical environment) are essential to our well-being. They stabilize climate, regulate water flow and provide clean water and soil. As well, those systems provide the natural resources (e.g., minerals, oil, natural gas and trees) that the B.C. economy depends on.
The ability to derive benefits from the land depends on the condition of the underlying ecological system. Managing the cumulative effects of human activities is therefore important for ensuring that the land continues to provide sustainable social, economic and environmental benefits.
“Collectively, we can neither maintain the quality of what we have nor expand opportunities without considering the cumulative effects on the basic systems that provide the means for sustaining economic activities and human well-being.” ~ Business Council of British Columbia (2012), Environment and Energy Bulletin, Volume 4, Issue 6, November 2012
In B.C., the need to manage cumulative effects is both implicit and explicit in government and ministry plans.
“Our responsibility as a government is to develop our economy in an environmentally sustainable manner, while we get to ‘yes’ with every possible measure to draw investment and create jobs.” ~ Province of British Columbia Strategic Plan 2014/15–2017/18
Findings
Current legislation and directives do not effectively support the management of cumulative effects across natural resource sectors.
We found that, with few exceptions, laws, regulations and government directives are natural resource sector specific (e.g., forestry, mining, oil and gas) and are carried out by ministries and agencies with different mandates (see Exhibit 7). Accordingly, ministry activities may be conducted within one sector without considering the impacts of, or by, other sectors. For example, the ministry’s objectives for biodiversity under the Forest and Range Practices Act do not apply to other natural resource sectors, such as mining.
This separation can lead to inconsistencies in how environmental values are identified and assessed, and also prevent decision-makers from being able to properly manage cumulative effects. Managing cumulative effects requires managing all resource activity, not just in one sector in the applicable area.
The ministry has not been adequately considering or addressing cumulative effects in its natural resource use decisions.
The ministry told us that one way it considers and addresses cumulative effects is through its authorization decisions. We therefore examined a selection of ministry files in the Skeena Region for evidence that ministry staff had considered cumulative effects when deciding whether to authorize development proposals.
We found little evidence that this had happened. Documentation prepared by decision makers explaining the rationale for their natural resource use decisions was often not on file and, in files where it was, it generally did not identify whether cumulative effects were considered. However, we did note that decision-makers had evaluated whether Forest Stewardship Plans were consistent with values established under the Forest and Range Practices Act.
We found that neither legislation nor other government directives explicitly requires this ministry, or any other government ministry or agency, to manage cumulative effects when authorizing the use of natural resources. And current legislation and directives do not effectively support the management of cumulative effects across all of B.C.’s natural resource sector ministries and agencies. Each body operates under its own mandate and, therefore, may undertake its decisions and activities without considering the impacts on, or by, other sectors.
Our overall conclusions:
- Government has not provided the ministry with clear direction or the powers necessary to manage cumulative effects when deciding on natural resource use.
- The ministry is not effectively considering or addressing cumulative effects in its decision making, as demonstrated by recent activity audited in the Skeena Region of northwest B.C.
- The ministry is working to improve cumulative effects management by developing an assessment framework, but how the Government of B.C. and natural resource ministries will use it to inform and support development decisions across the natural resources sector is not clear.
Recommendations
We Recommend That the Government of British Columbia:
1. assign the province’s natural resource ministries and agencies clear roles and responsibilities for managing the cumulative effects of development activities on the land base.
2. introduce tools, such as legislation and policy, that will enable all of the province’s natural resource sector ministries and agencies to coordinate cumulative effects management across all the sectors.
5. establish and/or update, as the foundation for cumulative effects management, values that are important for the province to sustain, and the acceptable conditions for those values.
7. establish how assessments resulting from the Cumulative Effects Framework will be used to inform and support natural resource development decisions by ministries in all resource sectors.
We Recommend That the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations:
3. provide its decision-makers with instruction and training on how to assess and manage cumulative effects when authorizing natural resource use.
4. consider cumulative effects when authorizing natural resource development, and document the rationale for its decisions.
6. monitor the condition of values and make that information available to decision-makers.
8. annually report to the Legislative Assembly on progress in implementing the Cumulative Effects Framework, and how risks are being managed to ensure its successful implementation.
9. assess options for accelerating full implementation of the Cumulative Effects Framework, and submit a proposal to Cabinet for decision.
